Rather than casting this argument in terms of military power, battles, and the like, I'd like to see some information about what it was actually like to live in the Byzantine empire. Were its citizens better off - materially or otherwise - than their contemporaries in other societies? That's the only criterion of "greatness" that really counts, but no-one has addressed it at all.
The Byzantine empire
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Hey Dachs, might you say a word about how important the heavy cavalrymen were in the Eastern Roman Empire, in terms of social functions? Likely not in the same way as knighthood was in the West, I would think.
Some corrections, if I may:
Manzikert, I presume, 1071. An ominous battle...
According to Diarmaid MacCulloch the double eagle, adopted in 1000 AD stands for East and West (Roman Empire that is). I also doubt if the concept of ruling in two continents was very important at the time (if indeed the concept had already been developed), nor ruling both sides of the Bosporus (which isn't that big).
I'm sure you mean medieval Russians?
Indeed: the 'Russian' double eagle was a czarist adoption of the extinct Byzantines' emblem; hence the concept of Russia as the third Rome.
As Byzantium was indirectly responsible for the christianization of Eastern Europe - in large part due to two monks, one of whom invented the Cyrillic alphabet -, it was in essence father to the present day Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe (not to mention the influence of that Byzantine invention, the icon).
In essence historically incorrect: the Byzantine distrust of Catholic Christians only turned to hatred with the Fourth Crusade, which, instead of marching to the Holy Land, turned on their fellow Christians. Also, the history of the Eastern Empire (strictly speaking the Roman Empire) shos repated efforts to regain what was lost after the fall of Rome until the onslaught of Islam reversed fortune irrevocably, taking two thirds of the then empire.
That's rather a modern way to look at The Byzantine Empire. I'm not sure of social historians have addressed this particular issue. There may very well be a Social History of Byzantium (there are several of Rome); perhaps Dachs or Ajidica knows of one?
That apart, doesn't the greatness of Byzantium - as already mentioned - also lie in the ancient heritage combined with the Orthodox Church?
Manzikert, I presume, 1071. An ominous battle...
According to Diarmaid MacCulloch the double eagle, adopted in 1000 AD stands for East and West (Roman Empire that is). I also doubt if the concept of ruling in two continents was very important at the time (if indeed the concept had already been developed), nor ruling both sides of the Bosporus (which isn't that big).
I'm sure you mean medieval Russians?
Indeed: the 'Russian' double eagle was a czarist adoption of the extinct Byzantines' emblem; hence the concept of Russia as the third Rome.
As Byzantium was indirectly responsible for the christianization of Eastern Europe - in large part due to two monks, one of whom invented the Cyrillic alphabet -, it was in essence father to the present day Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe (not to mention the influence of that Byzantine invention, the icon).
In essence historically incorrect: the Byzantine distrust of Catholic Christians only turned to hatred with the Fourth Crusade, which, instead of marching to the Holy Land, turned on their fellow Christians. Also, the history of the Eastern Empire (strictly speaking the Roman Empire) shos repated efforts to regain what was lost after the fall of Rome until the onslaught of Islam reversed fortune irrevocably, taking two thirds of the then empire.
That's rather a modern way to look at The Byzantine Empire. I'm not sure of social historians have addressed this particular issue. There may very well be a Social History of Byzantium (there are several of Rome); perhaps Dachs or Ajidica knows of one?
That apart, doesn't the greatness of Byzantium - as already mentioned - also lie in the ancient heritage combined with the Orthodox Church?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
This quote, though made at the end of the Empire's life, is essentially its story in microcosm:
"You stupid Greeks, I have known your cunning ways for long enough. The late Sultan was a lenient and conscientious friend to you. The present Sultan Mehmed is not of the same mind. If Constantinople eludes his bold and imperious grasp, it will only be because Allah continues to overlook your devious and wicked schemes. You are fools to think that you can frighten us with your fantasies and that when the ink on our recent treaty of peace is barely dry. We are not children without strength or sense. If you think that you can start go ahead. If you want to bring the Hungarians across the Danube, let them come. If you want to recover places that you lost long since, try it. But know this: you will make no headway in any of these things. All that you will do is lose what little you still have." - Halil Pasha, Ottoman Grand Vizier
"You stupid Greeks, I have known your cunning ways for long enough. The late Sultan was a lenient and conscientious friend to you. The present Sultan Mehmed is not of the same mind. If Constantinople eludes his bold and imperious grasp, it will only be because Allah continues to overlook your devious and wicked schemes. You are fools to think that you can frighten us with your fantasies and that when the ink on our recent treaty of peace is barely dry. We are not children without strength or sense. If you think that you can start go ahead. If you want to bring the Hungarians across the Danube, let them come. If you want to recover places that you lost long since, try it. But know this: you will make no headway in any of these things. All that you will do is lose what little you still have." - Halil Pasha, Ottoman Grand Vizier
Just as crappy as everywhere else for the vast majority of people. Standards of living didn't really change for anything but maybe the top 5% (in terms of income) in all human society until the 19th century.
Kataphraktoi weren't the same as knights because their ability to arm themselves came from the State, in the form of a monetary allowance, not from personal finance or their own resources; perhaps around the late tenth century or so, you might find a growing (but small) military aristocracy (a loose term; they were untitled gentry, in a situation extremely unlike that in Western Europe) in Anatolia, but frankly we're extremely unsure about how important this aristocracy was even politically, much less the numbers they provided for military service. Even after Alexios Komnenos ruined the empire with his family-based governance the "titled" aristocracy that was created was limited to, well, a fairly small and tightly knit family. By the period of the Palaiologoi, though, this got well out of hand, and one can see the landowning titled nobility fighting as cavalry in imperial service as remarkably similar to their Western European counterparts.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
So in your mind all the greek scholars left the Byzantine Empire only at 1453? No one left before, from fear of the imminent collapse?
Okay after a bit of fact checking... I was wrong... Misjudged the influence of Greek Scholars.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Can you show me some links or something. From the book I read on the Crusades and various Wikipedia pages, the Byzantine hated the Latins with their barbarism, the fact that they kicked them out of Italy, back-stabbed and betrayed them, from the Crowning of a German Emperor to the Pop being an ass.
Read Christopher Tyerman, God's War. Or even Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204.
Even J.J. Norwich's A (Short) History of Byzantium (there are two versions) gives a rather detailed description of the behaviour of the crusaders en route to their goal (starting with the First Crusade's treatment of Hungarian Christians); Byzantines (and other Christians, plus Jews and Muslims in and around the Holy Land) had good reason to hate the 'barbarians from the West'.
Mhm.
On a side note, I'd recommend avoiding Norwich unless you can't hold your attention to a longer or less narrative history book. Norwich did a fantastic job at summarizing the old-school way to teach Byzantine history, complete with (usually) uncritical passages from some of the more famous Byzantine chroniclers and a relatively light touch on archaeology. All in all, he doesn't incorporate much of the secondary literature on the empire at all, and misses a huge part of how much Byzantine studies have changed in the last fifty years. Some of the things he repeats have been discarded by most other historians of the empire (his discussion of the Komnenoi, for instance); some extremely important events get little to no examination at all (virtually all concrete military or political events in Anatolia, especially in the Revival and Makedonian periods). His stock in trade is the anecdote, and the scurrilous gossip of the court takes precedence over all other politics; both of these are well done, but provide at best an incomplete view. Treadgold is certainly better for an overall view of the history. I have heard good things about Herrin, but haven't read her book yet so I couldn't say anything definitively.
On a side note, I'd recommend avoiding Norwich unless you can't hold your attention to a longer or less narrative history book. Norwich did a fantastic job at summarizing the old-school way to teach Byzantine history, complete with (usually) uncritical passages from some of the more famous Byzantine chroniclers and a relatively light touch on archaeology. All in all, he doesn't incorporate much of the secondary literature on the empire at all, and misses a huge part of how much Byzantine studies have changed in the last fifty years. Some of the things he repeats have been discarded by most other historians of the empire (his discussion of the Komnenoi, for instance); some extremely important events get little to no examination at all (virtually all concrete military or political events in Anatolia, especially in the Revival and Makedonian periods). His stock in trade is the anecdote, and the scurrilous gossip of the court takes precedence over all other politics; both of these are well done, but provide at best an incomplete view. Treadgold is certainly better for an overall view of the history. I have heard good things about Herrin, but haven't read her book yet so I couldn't say anything definitively.
I did not know that. (I assume there's no mention of Ukrainians either.)
@Dachs: Yes, that's why I said "Even J.J. Norwich..." He's not educated as a historian and wrote his - as you correctly say - criticized work during his apparently vast spare time as a politician. But for explaining why Western Christians - and especially Catholic crusaders - weren't very popular with Byzantium his account is quite useful, as he gives detailed accounts of the impact of the various Crusades on Byzantium (and surrounding countries).
@Dachs: Yes, that's why I said "Even J.J. Norwich..." He's not educated as a historian and wrote his - as you correctly say - criticized work during his apparently vast spare time as a politician. But for explaining why Western Christians - and especially Catholic crusaders - weren't very popular with Byzantium his account is quite useful, as he gives detailed accounts of the impact of the various Crusades on Byzantium (and surrounding countries).
Oh, sure, that wasn't aimed at you - it was a general message to avoid that particular pitfall on other occasions. On other message boards I've encountered people who try to shore up their arguments with Norwich, and I myself first got an introduction to Byzantine history through him.
Hm, yes. Personally I found it kind of funny when he mentions in his introduction that he wants to debunk notions of Byzantine history consisting mainly of court intrigue and then proceeds to describe said intrigues in the most vivid details ad nauseam...
LightSpectra
me autem minui
In its last centuries perhaps. Pre-Islam and after the rule of Basil II it was one of the most advanced nations in the world.
The Ottomans were better.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
In some ways, yes. Which is not surprising considering that their ascension was simultaneous with East Roman decline. Nevertheless this has no bearing on the fact that in her prime, the Eastern Roman Empire was -- relative to its neighbors -- a great power.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
A pretty good book on Byzantium I found was 'The Oxford History of Byzantium', its quite a few essays concerning different parts of Byzantium and is quite good. I believe it was editted by Cyril Mango.
As for JJ Norwich books on Byzantium, they do lean heavily on court intrigue and such, but he made it clear in the intoduction it was not designed to serve as a sociological, economic, or otherwise 'dry' history of Byzantium. For me it did alot to humanize the different people. In addition, for a history text it is relativly light reading.
Dachs, you mentioned that JJ Norwich didn't do a good job on describing the Komneni, what do you mean by that? Most of the other books I've read on the Comneni seem to agree with him. However, that may be because the books by him are the most recent books on Byzantium my library has.
As for my personal opinion on the Byzantine Empire, it was a glorious failure. The failure of their Empire to survive is what makes them so interesting to me. Plus there is always the romantic element of them, where their history can read like a Greek tradgedy. Their mark on history is undeniable. Such as preventing a Persian or Arab conquest of Europe, for better or worse.
As for JJ Norwich books on Byzantium, they do lean heavily on court intrigue and such, but he made it clear in the intoduction it was not designed to serve as a sociological, economic, or otherwise 'dry' history of Byzantium. For me it did alot to humanize the different people. In addition, for a history text it is relativly light reading.
Dachs, you mentioned that JJ Norwich didn't do a good job on describing the Komneni, what do you mean by that? Most of the other books I've read on the Comneni seem to agree with him. However, that may be because the books by him are the most recent books on Byzantium my library has.
As for my personal opinion on the Byzantine Empire, it was a glorious failure. The failure of their Empire to survive is what makes them so interesting to me. Plus there is always the romantic element of them, where their history can read like a Greek tradgedy. Their mark on history is undeniable. Such as preventing a Persian or Arab conquest of Europe, for better or worse.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The "Byzantine Empire" (a modern term that was never used in its own lifespan; it was always called the Roman Empire) lasted 1,000 years after the de jure end of the WRE. Calling it a "glorious failure" is a bit ridiculous, no? As a continuous civilization it lasted far, far longer than many others, and with far more impressive achievements than most.
Similar threads
